Allahabad High Court

SANJEEVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to conditions, as the case is fit for bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Sanjeev, who was charged under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual offences against a minor. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to contradictions between the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and the victim's refusal to undergo a medico‑legal examination. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim's minority and the seriousness of the allegations. The court, after reviewing the record and noting the applicant's clean criminal record and the prolonged pendency of the trial, concluded that the case was fit for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a minor.
Whether contradictions in the victim's statements and the absence of a medico‑legal examination preclude the grant of bail.
Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and the anticipated trial pendency justify the issuance of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 351, 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
sexual offences
minor
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
POCSO Act
contradictory statements
trial pendency

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30685 of 2026

Sanjeev
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr.
Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri O.P. Singh,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2026 under Sections 137(2),
65(1) BNS, 3/4 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Bachharaun, District
Amroha during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and there are material
contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180
and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that the victim has not stated anything
against the applicant in her statement under section 183 BNSS whereas, in
her statement under sections 180 BNSS, she has stated that she left her home
on her own free will and had gone to Delhi along with the applicant where
she lived with him and physical relationship was established between them
with mutual consent. It is further submitted that the victim is a student of
class Xth and she is aged about 16 years as per ossification test and her date
of birth is 05.5.2011 as per certificate of class VIIIth. It is further submitted
that the victim has refused to undergo medico-legal examination. It is further
submitted that applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing
in jail since 29.7.2026 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty,
if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of
BAIL No. 30685 of 2026
2

cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits
that victim is a minor girl aged about 15 years as per certificate of class
VIIIth and 16 years as per ossification test.

5. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the
first informant aged about 16 years, however, she has been recovered. The
victim has not stated anything against the applicant in her statement under
section 183 BNSS whereas, in her statement under sections 180 BNSS, she
has stated that she left her home on her own free will and had gone to Delhi
along with the applicant where she lived with him and physical relationship
was established between them with mutual consent. The victim is a student
of class Xth and she is aged about 16 years as per ossification test and her
date of birth is 05.5.2011 as per certificate of class VIIIth. The victim has
refused to undergo medico-legal examination. Applicant, who has no
criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 29.7.2026.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

7. Let the applicant Sanjeev involved in the aforesaid case crime be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following
conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat,
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
BAIL No. 30685 of 2026
3

present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.

September 23, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…